Francesco Lacquaniti, Mauro Carrozzo, Andrea d’Avella, Barbara La Scaleia, Alessandro Moscatelli, Myrka Zago
Abstract
In the future, human-like robots will live among people to provide company and help carrying out tasks in cooperation with humans. These interactions require that robots understand not only human actions, but also the way in which we perceive the world. Human perception heavily relies on the time dimension, especially when it comes to processing visual motion. Critically, human time perception for dynamic events is often inaccurate. Robots interacting with humans may want to see the world and tell time the way humans do: if so, they must incorporate human-like fallacy. Observers asked to judge the duration of brief scenes are prone to errors: perceived duration often does not match the physical duration of the event. Several kinds of temporal distortions have been described in the specialized literature. Here we review the topic with a special emphasis on our work dealing with time perception of animate actors versus inanimate actors. This work shows the existence of specialized time bases for different categories of targets. The time base used by the human brain to process visual motion appears to be calibrated against the specific predictions regarding the motion of human figures in case of animate motion, while it can be calibrated against the predictions of motion of passive objects in case of inanimate motion. Human perception of time appears to be strictly linked with the mechanisms used to control movements. Thus, neural time can be entrained by external cues in a similar manner for both perceptual judgments of elapsed time and in motor control tasks. One possible strategy could be to implement in humanoids a unique architecture for dealing with time, which would apply the same specialized mechanisms to both perception and action, similarly to humans. This shared implementation might render the humanoids more acceptable to humans, thus facilitating reciprocal interactions.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,363,356
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#576
of 853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,330
of 305,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 853 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.
